[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 120 (Wednesday, September 29, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7831-H7838]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMPORTANT STRATEGIES FOR FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the
minority leader.
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about what
I believe to be the most difficult and the most important issue facing
this Congress, a Congress that has the responsibility under the
Constitution to provide for the common defense, and that problem is the
threat of international terrorism.
It has been over 3 years now since the horrific attacks against our
Nation occurred on September 11. Our world has changed in many respects
since then. We know that we are engaged in a global war against
terrorism. New security measures have been put in place at our ports,
along our borders, and even along the roads leading to our Nation's
capital. We know now that the circumstances in Arab and Muslim
countries on the other side of the globe can affect the safety and
security of all Americans right here at home.
With our national elections less than 5 weeks away, the American
people are asking whether we are truly winning this war against our
terrorist enemies. They want to know whether this government is taking
the steps necessary to ensure that we are as safe as we need to be.
The members of the Select Committee on Homeland Security have been
studying this issue closely for almost 2 years. We have visited our
ports and our borders. We have heard testimony from hundreds of
government officials and expert witnesses, and we have met with law
enforcement and security professionals in our congressional districts.
My colleagues and I are here tonight to say that, no, we are not as
safe as we need to be. We say this reluctantly and regretfully, but it
is our constitutional duty to be honest with our constituents and to
tell the Nation how it really is.
Despite the rhetoric that we hear so often from this administration,
the truth is that our government has not taken the steps necessary to
provide genuine security from the threat of terrorism, and whether or
not we are winning the war on terror has yet to be determined.
Indeed, 2 months ago, the 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan group
appointed by this Congress in very important legislation, they drew the
same conclusion that we draw tonight. That bipartisan report identified
severe defects in the administration's policies to counteract
terrorism, many of which were well-known years ago, but have not been
adequately addressed. Indeed, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report and
its recommendations are an indictment of this administration's efforts
over the past 3 years to secure the homeland and to defeat our
terrorist enemies.
The 9/11 Commission concluded, as we did in our report called
``Winning the War on Terror,'' that we must engage on three fronts
simultaneously. First, we need a more aggressive strategy to attack the
terrorists directly by using our military and our other national
security agencies wisely and cutting off the terrorists' source of
funds. Such an aggressive strategy should ensure that we strengthen our
intelligence capabilities to penetrate terrorist organizations and
ensure that we translate and analyze all of the intelligence
information that we collect in real-time.
Yesterday, the New York Times revealed in an article that the Justice
Department's own Inspector General has determined that nearly a quarter
of all ongoing FBI counterterrorism and counterintelligence wiretaps
are not being monitored and that nearly 120,000 hours of wiretap
recordings from terrorist investigations since September 11 have not
even been translated.
This is unacceptable. This is the same problem that we had before 9/
11. It was one of the key reasons that 9/11 occurred. If we are serious
in our efforts to attack the terrorists, we must take full advantage of
the information that is collected by our intelligence agencies. And to
learn that 3 years after 9/11, our government has yet to get itself in
a position to be able to translate the intelligence that we are
collecting, to be able to have the linguists available to make those
translations occur rapidly is totally unacceptable.
Additionally, we need to increase our special forces in our military
to more aggressively attack our terrorist enemies. We must create
greater numbers of small and light forces that have proved so
successful in hunting down terrorist cells, and we must dry up the
sources of funds for the terrorists and for their organizations. We
must lead an effort to establish international financial standards to
halt money laundering and to help other countries
[[Page H7832]]
crack down on individuals and organizations who provide money to
terrorist groups.
One may rightfully ask, why has this administration not done these
things some 3 years after 9/11? The gap between the rhetoric on
protecting the homeland and the reality of protecting the homeland is
indeed very great.
In addition to attacking the terrorists directly, we need to protect
our homeland by constructing and strengthening the layers of protective
measures overseas, at our borders, at our airports, our seaports, and
our critical infrastructures like the nuclear and chemical plants that
are targeted by our terrorist enemies.
As an example, we must commit the necessary resources and take
constructive steps with our allies to ensure that our dangerous nuclear
and radiological materials are safe and secure overseas and do not
threaten us here at home. We must ensure that we install the radiation
portal detectors at our ports to ensure that a weapon of mass
destruction cannot be shipped into our country on an 18-wheeler or in a
cargo container coming off a ship at one of our seaports.
It is unacceptable that 3 years after 9/11 we still have not
installed sufficient radiation portal detectors to know that this
country is safe from our terrorist enemies bringing a nuclear bomb or a
radiological device into our country. We must move much faster to
protect our borders, to protect our ports, to secure our airports, our
airplanes, and improve the capabilities of our Nation's first
responders; and we must ensure that we can protect our citizens from
the threat of bioterrorism, one of the most serious threats that we
face today and increasingly will face in the years ahead.
As we aggressively fight our terrorist enemies, as we work to improve
our homeland security, we must also engage in the third prong of making
America safe as recommended by the 9/11 Commission. We must create a
political, a social, and an economic strategy for this country to
engage the Arab and Muslim nations to prevent the rise of future
terrorists. Many observers who have looked closely at the war on terror
acknowledge very freely that we cannot win the war on terror with
military power alone. It will take all the tools in our national
arsenal to defeat al Qaeda and our terrorist enemies.
It is clear that we cannot coexist with our terrorist enemies. We
cannot bridge over our differences with al Qaeda, but we must be aware
of the nature of the current ideological struggle that is going on and
is very much a part of the war on terror. We must know our enemies, we
must understand what motivates them, and then we must support
initiatives to rob them of that support.
To prevent the rise of future terrorists, we must first pursue
policies that promote and support the voices of moderation in the
Middle East and offer an alternative vision of hope for the millions of
people, particularly young people, who today are appealed to by the
message of bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Secondly, we must promote and support democratic institutions and
practices worldwide, making it possible for democracy to rise in those
places in the world where it does not currently exist. We must have the
wisdom to recognize that democracy cannot be forced upon others; but it
must be the result of people willingly, freely choosing liberty for
themselves. We must launch an economic development partnership in the
Arab and Muslim world that is in the spirit of the Marshall Plan that
followed the Second World War. I would call this effort a renaissance
partnership, for it would lead to a rebirth of prosperity and a new
spirit of openness and tolerance in the Middle East. People without
hope, people without the chance for a better way of life, they are the
ones who respond to the ideology and to the message of the terrorists.
We can change the world, but we must do so by engaging the world, by
uniting with our allies in the rich Arab States to improve the
conditions of the Muslim and Arab world.
All three of these tasks, going after the terrorists more
aggressively, securing the homeland better than we are doing today, and
preventing the rise of future terrorists, must be the principal focus
of our national efforts to win the war on terror. Unfortunately, we do
not have a comprehensive strategy in place today to deal with these
elements in the war on terror, and that is why today we are not as safe
as we need to be.
Tonight I will be joined by some of my colleagues on the Select
Committee on Homeland Security and other Members who have played a
leading role in homeland security issues in this House. We will discuss
what we need to do to fight a smarter, a stronger, and a more effective
war against terrorism. We will talk about the security gaps facing our
Nation and our ideas for closing them.
We know that our terrorist enemies are not waiting. They continue to
plot. They continue to scheme to attack America. We must have a sense
of urgency, for the time to act is now; and we cannot wait any longer.
{time} 2115
I am pleased to yield to the distinguished delegate from the Virgin
Islands (Mrs. Christensen), who has been a leader on the Select
Committee on Homeland Security on the issues of bioterrorism and public
health preparedness. Her background in the medical field has enabled
her to have unique insights into what we need to be doing as a Nation
to be better prepared to deal with the threats it faces.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Turner) for yielding, and I want to thank him for his leadership and
for bringing us here this evening. I am pleased to join him and other
Members of our committee to call attention to the glaring deficiencies
in homeland security, which continue to exist now more than 3 years
after the attacks of 9/11, and the failures of the administration in
this regard.
I do not call attention to them to cause alarm but to continue to put
pressure on the administration and the Department to address what every
commission or task force has told us even before that fateful day, and
what polls show is the primary concern of Americans, our safety and the
safety of our children, our protection from terrorism.
I am going to focus on the area of bioterrorism, and we can all agree
that the threat of biological attack is a very real one.
Indeed, we have seen biologic agents used in this very building
against our colleagues and those who work here. We also witnessed the
differences in public health response here and in our neighboring
communities, especially communities of color where several people died.
At committee meeting after committee meeting, we called the attention
of this administration and the department to the fact that our public
health system is inadequate in many areas; that the disparities in
health care reflect this; and that many, especially in the private
sector of medicine, are not trained or prepared to respond adequately
in the case of an attack. Yet we still lag behind in these critical
areas.
First of all, the health sector is not yet as fully incorporated as
it should be in all areas of planning, and the development of systems
that are important to the protection of our citizens.
Just this morning, we heard from Dr. Joseph Barbera of the George
Washington University Institute for Crisis, Disaster and Risk
Management, at a subcommittee hearing on the National Incident
Management System, the very core of our response.
In his statement, the fact that he saw it necessary to stress to us
that ``medical care necessary for a mass casualty event must be
recognized as a public safety function and therefore as a governmental
responsibility that is equal in importance to fire suppression,
emergency medical services, public works and law enforcement,'' the
fact that he had to tell us, that speaks volumes about where this
expert sees our state of readiness in this critical area. It is not
where it should be.
I can tell my colleagues that in too many instances, health, both
public and private, are not included. This while 62 percent of
emergency rooms are over capacity and public health laboratories are
reportedly operating at an average of 75 percent above capacity.
The funding that this administration has supplied to address these
deficiencies is far below the estimated $10 billion that is reportedly
needed to
[[Page H7833]]
bring just the public health sector to where it needs to be. We have
not begun to scratch the surface.
Another aspect of bioterrorism preparedness which this administration
and the Department has failed to adequately address is the need to
develop the capacity to rapidly diagnose and develop treatments for any
agents that might be used.
In May, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and I introduced the
Rapid Cures Act which would promote technological advancements to
reduce the time frame from several years to a few months at the most
for the development of new medical countermeasures to treat or prevent
disease caused by not only agents of bioterrorism but disease agents or
toxins that have the potential to plague our communities today.
SARS has shown us that we cannot know or predict what will be used.
In that respect, Project Bioshield is not helpful. This bill gets to
the heart of the matter and develops capacity that is more of the all-
hazards approach that Governor Gilmore and many others have so strongly
recommended.
We need to have protection and treatment against dangerous biological
agents that might be used in an attack quickly, not in the 10 or 15
years it is now estimated to take. That bill has not even had a hearing
yet.
Lastly, the administration has pretty much ignored the role of the
public. They have not been brought into the discussion or development
of the systems to the extent they need to be.
In every town meeting that I have had, I have heard critiques of what
has been promulgated, and I have been asked how they can participate in
developing the preparedness and the response. We ignore them at the
potential peril of all of us.
One of the most important things that is needed in a disaster or any
emergency is for people to follow instructions. If they do not, they
put themselves and all of us at risk.
Just in the last few weeks, we saw people who clearly knew what their
instructions were out in the ocean or not evacuating their homes, and
that was in a relatively familiar disaster.
To date, most of the public are unclear about what they are to do in
the case of the different forms of possible terrorism attacks.
On September 14, the New York Academy of Medicine's Center for the
Advancement of Collaborative Strategies in Health along with the Joint
Center for Economic and Political Study released a groundbreaking
report entitled Redefining Readiness: Terrorism Planning through the
Eyes of the Public.
The New York Academy of Sciences found that only two-fifths of the
American people would follow instructions to get vaccinated in the
event of a smallpox outbreak. In addition, it stated that only three-
fifths of the American people would shelter in place for as long as
told in a dirty bomb explosion.
One reason for the lack of cooperation is that many people would be
also worried about something other than what the planners are trying to
protect them from. Three-fifths of the American people would have
serious worries about the smallpox vaccine itself, and that is twice as
many people as would be seriously worried about getting smallpox in the
outbreak.
What we find in the case of the public is that the administration and
the Department, as they have done too often in the case of first
responders, have assumed that they knew what was best, or what was
needed, instead of letting the people, in this case, speak for
themselves, participate in the process of developing the strategies and
the plan. On something this important, there must be a methodology in
place to do this. Three years later, there is none.
First responders, all of them must be fully engaged in the process
and so must the public.
This administration has spent too much time assembling a bureaucracy,
one that does not even reflect the diversity of the country which it
protects and too little time on putting the kinds of protections in
place to be able to begin to claim the security high ground.
Two weeks ago, senators released a report card on this
administration's progress in homeland security. While many other areas
got a C to an F, bioterrorism actually got a B. The grade has to be
much lower than that. Too much remains unaddressed. I would give them
at best a C minus, and below average is not good enough for protecting
us and our families. They have a lot more that needs to be done to
ensure that we are as protected as we can be from a bioterrorism
attack.
We know that there is no way to be 100 percent safe, but the White
House has fought us, the Democrats particularly, on almost every step
of the way to get to even where we are today. It has not provided the
kind of leadership that is required, and it has certainly not lived up
to its promises.
As a result, today, we are not as safe as we ought to be 3 years
after that horrific wake-up call.
I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for yielding to me and
giving me the opportunity to be included in this special order. I thank
him again for his leadership on the committee.
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much.
I thank her again for her leadership on this issue.
Next, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Lowey), another member of the House Select Committee on Homeland
Security, a lady who has shown not only leadership on our committee on
behalf of homeland security but great leadership on the House Committee
on Appropriations. She has also worked vigorously to protect her State
from the threat of terrorism, the great State of New York. So it is a
pleasure to yield to her.
Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Texas
for his leadership on this committee. He worked so hard and helped us
put together a really outstanding plan. It is unfortunate that because
of various interactivities of the Republican leadership that we have
not been able to take this plan to the finish line, but I personally
want to thank him for his important contributions in helping us work
towards a plan that would help keep America safe. So I thank him so
very much for his important leadership.
Mr. Speaker, it really amazes me that more than 3 years after
September 11, we are still talking about gaps in our Nation's strategy
to protect against and prepare for another terrorist attack.
Several of my colleagues from the Select Committee on Homeland
Security have already highlighted ways in which we can improve port and
rail security; how can we better prepare public health communities to
deal with a biological attack; and how to protect and secure our
borders. We all agree that more needs to be done and must be done and
that Congress should not go home without addressing each of these
critical issues.
In my judgment, this administration and this Congress need to beef up
their efforts to provide for first responders. Local police,
firefighters, EMS technicians need information. They need training.
They need the life-saving equipment necessary to protect them from the
dangers they face every day.
I was appalled when I read in yesterday's New York Times that more
than 120,000 hours of potentially valuable terrorism-related recordings
had not yet been translated by linguists at the FBI. This is outrageous
and particularly dangerous, especially for the residents of my home
State of New York, which is referenced in intelligence reports time and
time again.
How can we expect first responders to be able to adequately prepare
for an attack when the Federal Government does not even have the
capability to analyze and share with them the intelligence information
it has collected? We can and we must do better.
As I travel throughout my district and speak with first responders,
like Chief John Kapica from the town of Greenburgh, Chief Robert Breen
from the town of New Castle, Chief Robert D'Angelo from the town of
North Castle and all the other chiefs with whom I have been working
closely, they all tell me that implementing an interoperable
communications system is one of their highest priorities and that they
have not received nearly enough guidance, support or resources to
achieve this goal.
[[Page H7834]]
The 9/11 Commission report confirms that, despite the heroic efforts
and experience of first responders, communications deficiency and lack
of interoperable systems among police, firefighters and other rescue
agencies hindered their response at the World Trade Center.
Eight years ago, let me repeat, 8 years ago, the final report of the
Federal Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee concluded that,
``unless immediate measures are taken to promote interoperability,
public safety agencies will not be able to adequately discharge their
obligation to protect life and property in a safe, efficient and cost-
effective manner.''
Now, forgive me if I sound impatient or even extraordinarily angry,
but I am. With nearly every major study and report on homeland security
concluding that lack of interoperability remains one of the most
serious issues facing first responders in this country, I just simply
cannot understand why this administration has done little more than pay
lip service to the seriousness of this issue.
With estimates for implementing a nationwide interoperable
communications infrastructure ranging anywhere from $7 billion to $18
billion, local governments and first-responder agencies cannot be
expected to pick up the tab without significant help from the Federal
Government.
Some of my colleagues may argue that current homeland security grants
can be used to upgrade communications systems. While this may be true,
the costs are so enormous, there simply is not enough money to go
around. In my judgment, we are forcing our communities to make
impossible decisions on how to use these funds.
{time} 2130
That is why I joined with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Turner), to introduce the CONNECT First Responders Act. This
legislation establishes a Federal interoperability office and creates a
new $5 billion DHS grant program dedicated to helping States and
localities achieve communications interoperability.
I understand that Secretary Tom Ridge recently announced the creation
of an Office of Interoperability and Compatibility, with similar goals
to the office that we propose in the legislation. I am pleased that the
Department has taken this important step, and I am glad that our
legislation may have encouraged those efforts.
We have learned the hard way that, at best, gaps in communications
hamper rescue efforts; and at worst, they can lead to the loss of life
for emergency personnel and victims. Our communities should not have to
wait 2 years or 5 years from now until another disaster strikes to get
the help they need to close this glaring and unnecessary gap in our
Nation's security. Our first responders served us with honor and
distinction on September 11 and every day before and since, and they
deserve better.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to once again thank my good
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), and my other
colleagues on the committee, as well as the staff for all their work in
putting together a plan that really can win the war on terror.
We are, in America, at risk. As the mother of three and the
grandmother of six, I worry every day about the future of my community
and about the future of this great country of ours. We are talking
about a complete overhaul of our intelligence system. Yes, they may be
part of it, but there are specific actions that we can take right now.
Shame on us if we do not move forward on the recommendations that can
be implemented as we speak.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas again for his
leadership.
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New
York for her comments and her leadership.
Next, Madam Speaker, I wish to yield the floor to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a distinguished Member of this House who
has worked diligently on our committee, who not only is a good
legislator but a fine gentleman and is very committed to implementing
the third prong of the war on terror as recommended by the 9/11
Commission, which is preventing the rise of future terrorism.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I thank my friends and colleagues, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Stupak), for leading this Special Order. I especially want to recognize
the work of the gentleman from Texas as our ranking member on the
Select Committee on Homeland Security. Your colleagues and all
Americans owe you a great debt of gratitude for your consistent valiant
efforts to keep these critical issues at the forefront of the national
debate.
Madam Speaker, there is no question about the importance of our
efforts here at home to improve domestic security and preparedness, but
I want to spend my time this evening addressing a topic that I think
deserves equal attention, mainly the need for a full-scale global
effort to enhance the image of America in the world and prevent the
rise in recruitment of future terrorists. I think we often overlook
this aspect of Homeland Security, perhaps because it is not as
tangible, or the path is not as clear-cut, or perhaps because success
is harder to measure. But we do so at our own peril and at the peril of
countless future generations.
Dr. Joe Nye, the former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Affairs, has talked about the need to supplement our military
might with soft power, efforts to win the world's hearts and minds with
our values and culture. Successfully exercising this type of power
requires that we pursue many fronts, including international diplomacy,
democracy building, cultural exchanges, economic development,
educational initiatives, and communication about our values and our
ideals.
Now, most people do not give this strategy the attention it deserves,
but I am pleased that the 9/11 Commission report recognized that soft
power will be a critical component in our long-term efforts to stop the
spread of Islamist terrorism.
It is easy to say that we were attacked on September 11 because the
terrorists despise freedom and hate the American way of life, but the
truth is much more complicated, and we do ourselves a disservice if we
accept the simple answer.
To win the ideological battle being waged in the world today, we have
to offer an alternative to the hopelessness and despair that the likes
of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda prey upon. Madam Speaker, there are
millions of young people in the Islamic world who are hungry for hope
and opportunity, and it is in our interest to show them that hope lies
in freedom, liberty, and democracy, not in extremism and hate.
By pursuing policies abroad that promote voices of moderation, we can
isolate the extremists and present a better vision of the future. By
promoting democratic institutions, we can show that there is a better
way, and we can offer a choice. By supporting economic development
partnerships in the Arab world, we can help these nations become
prosperous and self-sufficient. And by spearheading an international
effort to offer educational alternatives to children in the Muslim
world, we can provide the next generation with the tools to build a
better future. These efforts will require significant resources, but
the payoff will be immeasurable.
Perhaps most importantly, we must show the world what America and
Americans truly stand for: tolerance, opportunity, hope, and freedom.
And we must do it quickly, before an inaccurate image is indelibly
emblazoned on the minds of millions. As the 9/11 Commission so
eloquently put it, we need to defend our ideals abroad vigorously. If
the U.S. does not act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic
world, the extremists will gladly do the job for us.
Madam Speaker, in closing, let me again thank our ranking member, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Stupak) for bringing us to the floor this evening to discuss these
critical issues. September 11 should have made clear to all of us that
we do not have the luxury of time when it comes to addressing our
security at home and abroad. I urge the President and his
administration to exercise strong leadership and provide the necessary
resources to ensure the safety of our citizens and our Nation.
[[Page H7835]]
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, next I would like to yield to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), a gentleman who is most active on
behalf of the first responders across our country or those on the front
lines in the war on terror. He is a gentleman who serves on our
Democratic Task Force on Homeland Security, a gentleman who is most
respected by all of his colleagues in this House, and who has served
here for many years with distinction.
Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his
efforts and for leading our intelligence task force in all the work we
have been doing here under the gentleman's leadership on this issue,
along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the gentlewoman
from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Langevin), and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee), who we will hear from next.
Having been in law enforcement for many years, and having founded the
Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus here, we are now looking at the
third anniversary of September 11, and the question on many Americans'
minds is: Are we safer? Is America safer today than we were on 9/11?
The current administration says we are safer. The Republican leadership
in Congress says we are safer. But just because they say we are safer,
does not make it so.
For instance, when we are talking about our northern border, I come
from Michigan and I border Canada. President Bush said on January 25,
2002, ``We are analyzing every aspect of the border and making sure
that the effort is seamless, the communication is real, that the law
enforcement is strong.'' He also said on February 2, one week later,
``We are focusing on the heroic efforts of those first-time responders.
That's why we want to spend money to make sure the equipment is there,
strategies are there, communications are there to make sure that you
have whatever it takes to respond.''
The Bush administration has mastered the rhetoric. They talk a great
game about homeland security, but the numbers reveal a stark reality.
Here are a few points: we are 2,000 border patrol officers short along
the northern border with Canada, and the President's budget request
fails to include additional funding to make these border patrol
officers a reality.
Only 5 percent of passenger planes are screened for explosives,
according to the GAO. And the President wants to cut the number of air
marshals by 20 percent this year.
Our maritime security efforts are severely understaffed and
underfunded, allowing us to screen only 5 percent of the nearly 8
million seaborne containers entering the U.S. each year, and $7.5
billion is needed over the next 10 years in order to secure our ports
and waterways. The Bush administration has distributed a mere $441
million for this purpose.
This year's budget is the first time the Bush administration has ever
asked for any port security grant money. Without the Bush
administration's support, Congress has provided only $587 million for
port security since 2001. That is less than 10 percent of the money we
need to do the job.
The President has cut overall funding for adequate protective gear
and training for first responders. And this year is no different. He
proposed more than a 20 percent cut in first responder training and
State grants for training, equipment, and other homeland security
needs. More than 40 percent of our Nation's firefighters have not
received training for responding to nuclear, biological, or
radiological attack.
Finally, national reports on the 9/11 emergency response found that
the inability of our first responders from different agencies to talk
to one another was a key factor in the deaths of at least 121 New York
firefighters at the World Trade Center.
The independent 9/11 Commission report said ``funding interoperable
communications should be a Federal priority.'' Here is what they said,
the 9/11 report says: ``The inability to communicate was a critical
element of the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Somerset County,
Pennsylvania, crash sites, where multiple agencies and multiple
jurisdictions responded. The occurrence of this problem at three very
different sites is strong evidence that compatible and adequate
communications among public safety organizations at the State, local,
and Federal levels remain an important problem. Federal funding for
such interagency,'' interoperability as we call it, ``units should be
given high priority.''
Here is what the President said: ``It is important that we understand
in the first minutes and hours after attack. That is the most hopeful
time to save life, and that is why we are focusing on the heroic
efforts of those first-time responders. That is why we want to spend
money to make sure equipment is there, strategies are there,
communications are there to make sure you have whatever you need to
respond.''
Strong language from the 9/11 Commission; strong language from the
President. The reality is what it costs to get interoperability going
in this country 3 years later is $18 billion. What has President Bush
requested since 2003? He has requested $100 million.
The President even has zeroed out these accounts in the Department of
Homeland Security budget over the past 2 years. At the rate we are
going, according to the Department of Homeland Security officials, it
will be another 20 years before our Nation's first responders are
interoperable, where they can talk to each other, communicate with each
other. Madam Speaker, we do not have 20 years to wait.
Earlier this year, on this floor, I asked how much in the formula
grants provided for State homeland security has gone to
interoperability. The Department of Homeland Security could not tell
me. They committed to let Congress know the answer soon. We have
recently found out that it is going to be about another year before we
can even get an answer as to where the money has been spent, if it has
been spent at all on interoperability. That does not say much about the
oversight or planning in the Department of Homeland Security, and about
where the billions of dollars of State grant formula money is going.
Madam Speaker, the problems I have outlined are occurring because of
a lack of commitment on this administration to homeland security. Even
the Department of Homeland Security still has not hired some 30 percent
of the needed staff to properly run the agency. The homeland security
challenges we face, whether it is border, airline, rail, or port
security all require the same approach: real solutions instead of
rhetoric, real resources and not political pronouncements.
Day after day we are told our Nation is better prepared against a
terrorist attack than it was 3 years ago; but when only 4,000 Americans
guard a border over 4,000 miles long, I cannot agree our Nation's
northern border is secure. When our ports are not secured from the
entry of a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack, I cannot take the
word of anyone when they tell me my family and constituents are well
protected.
{time} 2145
And there is no comfort in the fact that our first responders are no
closer now than they were after 9/11 to be able to talk to each other
in times of natural disaster or terrorist attack. So how safe are we?
The administration points to the toppling of Saddam Hussein. That does
not make it. How does that make us safer when he was not an imminent
threat, when there were no weapons of mass destruction, and we have
diverted so much of our military and intelligence operations to Iraq.
Osama bin Laden is still out there. Iraq is now a haven for new
terrorist groups. Our country internationally is hated more than ever.
We have alienated our allies, so exactly, how are we safer?
In the meantime, the current administration and the Republican
Congress refuse to give our local, State and Federal agencies what they
need to protect our borders and our communities. We will not even give
them the equipment to talk to each other. On these issues, sure the
present administration has mastered the rhetoric, but when looking at
facts, we are dangerously behind in securing our borders to help
prevent another attack or be ready when one comes.
As head of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, we are going to
have a hearing next week on intra operability. There are technologies
which
[[Page H7836]]
could be implemented today where police officers, State, local, and
Federal, could talk to each other because of software developed by some
of these companies. It is there. We should not have to wait more than 3
years after 9/11 for something as simple as allowing people to talk to
each other. We hope we do not have another terrorist attack, but if we
do, maybe we can tell those brave first responders, say, with the
second building at the World Trade Center, the building is about ready
to come down, get out. We could have saved 120 lives if we had the
ability to communicate. Having been involved with law enforcement for
over 30 years, it is time to look at reality. This administration is
not doing the job. We are not safer at home than we were before, at,
during or after 9/11.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for
heading up our homeland security task force in our committee, and I
look forward to working together in the future. Maybe together we can
convince this Congress and the American people something as simple as
first responders being able to talk to each other would save so many
lives if we only had a commitment. I thank the gentleman for his
leadership.
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his leadership and for his conviction.
I think many of us are dismayed by the lack of preparedness 3 years
after 9/11 at a time when our government tells us every day that we are
faced with another terrorist threat, even estimating that we may be
attacked between now and the election or between now and the end of the
year. These are deadly, serious matters. I thank the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his leadership and for his hard work on
behalf of first responders and on behalf of the security of our
country.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield the floor to my friend, my
fellow Texan, fellow member of the Committee on Homeland Security, from
the great city of Houston, and I have seen the gentlewoman work on
behalf of first responders in her great city. I have seen her talk to
the many citizens who gather at her town meetings to discuss their
concerns about security. I have seen her visit the port of Houston and
the FBI office in Houston to talk about security. I know of her
dedication and leadership, and it is a pleasure to yield to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished
ranking member for gathering us today. In fact, let me add my accolades
for the extensive work, the serious work that has been the defining
track record of the gentleman's leadership as the ranking member of the
Committee on Homeland Security, and certainly, it has been, as the
staff you have guided, as you have guided us as members of that
committee.
Madam Speaker, there could not be more appropriate timing for this
Special Order to speak to our colleagues, and certainly to bring
attention to this very serious issue to the American people because, as
the gentleman knows, many of us spent a good part of the day marking up
legislation that pretends to be the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission.
I think that if the wisdom of the gentleman's staff and leadership
could have been exercised in the process, we would have had a full,
comprehensive legislative initiative that would have addressed the
concerns of the 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 families, and also put
together a fair package that would have responded to some of the needs
that have been addressed. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Turner), and I would like to start by referring first of all to the
document that was prepared, Transforming the Southern Border, Providing
Security and Prosperity in the Post-9/11 World, done by the staff,
mentioning the gentleman's leadership and that of the committee.
I would like to read directly out of it because this sets the tone
for the remarks that I would like to make on the southern border, and I
appreciate joining the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentlewoman from the
Virgin Islands (Ms. Christensen) to talk about all of the issues, and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) just mentioned the northern
border, and I come to focus on the southern border, but I do so with
the point that we have friends to the south. Mexico is a friend. Many
Central American states are friends. South American states, our
neighbors, are friends, and we speak about security in the context of
friendship because I actually believe if we are going to be secure, it
must be a collaborative effort.
Let me cite remarks on page 23: Infrastructure at the southern border
ports of entry cannot effectively handle hundreds of millions of
inspections annually. In addition, the southern border's infrastructure
cannot support the implementation of new border security programs
without harming the economies of border communities. There is a need to
balance the competing tension between screening people and vehicles for
terrorist weapons, contraband, smuggled immigrants and other prohibited
items with the need to ensure an efficient flow of commerce.
Substantial investment in border infrastructure is needed to ensure
national security while sustaining economic prosperity caused by
increased cross-border trade over the last 10 years.
That is what we have been saying. The reason why these issues are so
important is, we have not been able to balance the needs that are so
very important, between free trade opportunities and the idea of
security. There are 509 official ports of entry in the United States,
including land, airports and seaports. Of these, 166 are land ports of
entry, 43 of which are located on the southern border. These southern
border ports are equipped with 86 pedestrian lanes, 216 passenger
vehicle lanes and 70 cargo lanes. These ports of entry are generally
large facilities with high volumes of vehicular and commercial traffic.
This lays out just a photographic story of the kinds of challenges we
have at the length of the border, the kinds of challenges we have at
the border, and what we need of course is to have the skilled
technocrats and law enforcement that the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol
agents allow us to do. It is important to recognize in balancing these
issues that we must do something. What have we done, in the committee
that we are members of, we have done not as much as we should. Homeland
security will not work if local communities are not consulted on border
security policies, their cooperation is not sought, or if
implementation of border security programs is not coordinated. Homeland
security will not work if we are force-feeding border security policies
as opposed to collaborating with the community.
I joined the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) along with the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) to look at border control issues, and
that was one of the main points addressed. That is to work with those
local officials who live right on the border and let them tell us the
kinds of concerns that they have. One was not only dealing with the
lack of security measures there, in terms of the number of border
patrol agents, but we also found out that there really is a need for
changing policies and laws that allow some of those who have been
detained to simply walk away because we do not have the legal
procedures to hold them.
I want to make sure that all of the oversight issues are taken care
of, such as making sure that there is judicial process; for these
detainees to go through that process; making sure there are lawyers
there to help with those processes and see that they are fair. But at
the same time, we cannot have a secure border if we are allowing
individuals to simply walk away because there is no place for them to
be held. So more detainee facilities need to be there, adequately
equipped, and the border patrol agents need to be well-trained.
The bottom line is that we must secure the borders by having the
resources placed appropriately there. We also cannot ignore President
Vicente Fox. Just 2 years ago, President Bush spoke about immigration
reform and has done nothing to ensure that happening. That allows
President Fox to talk about having the borders in the manner that he
wants them in, and that certainly does not match the needs of this
Nation. We must have collaboration, but we must have a fixed
understanding of how we can continue
[[Page H7837]]
to have cooperation but not have the kind of systems that other nations
want us to have.
First, international cooperation is critical, as I indicated, to an
effective border security, and that means working with President Fox
and Mexico to make sure what we have works for all of us. We must work
with our neighbors to the north and south. Many of the border solutions
require the cooperation by neighbors to effectively implement. Second,
we must ensure that security at the border is delivered in a manner
that enhances and enforces our priorities. The foundations on which our
security programs are built, how they are implemented and how the
borders are staffed, all of these factors must be taken into account,
along with the security and economic interests of those living in the
border region.
We have U.S. customs. As I watched them go through the many ports of
entry, not enough staff. Technology, not enough technology at the
borders. We have just been able to secure the opportunities for
children to be detained in other facilities, but again, large numbers
of unaccompanied children coming into the United States, no real
resources to handle them. So we are finding ourselves caught between
what is a rock and a hard place.
We need, again, as I have mentioned over and over again, additional
technology. We need to have the kind of ability to survey the various
trucks that are coming in, and so we need to be able to use the new
technology to be able to survey trucks without actually going into the
trucks. We have seen that kind of technology at our various seaports.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about doing something. That is what this
Special Order has been. We are talking about the great needs of
infrastructure. Let me also suggest that I hope this Special Order will
argue for the continuation of the Committee on Homeland Security in the
next Congress. The reason why we bring these matters to the attention
of our colleagues is because we have heard over and over again from
Secretary Ridge that he wants a focused authorizing body where he can
address the concerns of homeland security in a fair and orderly way.
We have spoken about the ideas of first responders. We have talked
about the need of medicine and emergency response, and the idea of
dealing with the needs that will occur if there is a terrorist attack,
and we have talked about intraoperability and then the question of
border security. None of these issues have been fully addressed in the
select committee because we have either not had the time or wherewithal
by the majority to follow through. It is crucial that this committee
continues, but it is more crucial that we do things, and the way that
we must do things to adequately ensure the security of this country is
we must do it in a very bipartisan manner.
{time} 2200
The number of legislative initiatives that the ranking member has
helped us forge over the 2 years of the existence of this committee, I
would hope that these items will find a place in the legislative
history of this Congress. I hope they will be passed. I certainly hope
the Secure Borders Act, which my colleague, Ranking Member Turner,
introduced last week articulates a consensus approach to border
security. I hope by some miracle that we might even pass it if not at
the end of this session, in the lame duck that we are more than likely
to have.
The idea is, Madam Speaker, that security is not a lonely task. It is
a task that requires us to work together in an honest and open
dialogue. It requires us to pay attention to the work that has already
been done. Seven to 12 million illegal aliens enter into the United
States. We can do this. We can make a difference. We can do this by
passing border security legislation. We can do this by working with the
Select Committee on Homeland Security.
My final point would be, we can do this recognizing we need complete
immigration reform such that we deal with those illegal documents that
are already here, by providing them earned access to legalization and
family reunification. We can do that in a parallel track. I would only
say, Madam Speaker, the question is why? Why have we not done this? Why
have we not been able after the 9/11 tragedy to come together around
concrete, effective, important legislative initiatives as offered by
the ranking member and the Democrats on the Select Committee on
Homeland Security. The question is why? The response should be if not
now, then when? When are we going to address America's security needs?
I hope that we will do it soon. I thank the distinguished gentleman for
his time and effort.
Special Orders--Border Security--Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee
introduction
As a Representative from Texas--a border State--I am deeply concerned
about the state of homeland security at our land borders. My
constituents--the good people of Texas--and those in border States
across America--understand better than anyone in Washington what our
unique challenges are along the land borders.
Living in isolation has never been an option for us. We all know the
cost of shutting down that border--political, economic, social and
cultural. We are all united in wanting to keep our borders working--to
make sure that legitimate travelers and cargo are not held up but that
we do not let in those who would harm us.
When there is a threat to our country, it is our constituents and
businesses that are on the front-lines. Whatever comes into our
country--be it a crate of bananas or weapons of mass destruction, be it
a tourist come to spend some money in Houston or a terrorist seeking to
do us harm--our constituents feel it first.
In the aftermath of September 11th, we all agree that security is and
always must be our Nation's highest priority. There is no balancing act
as some might suggest. Balancing involves competing interests and a
give on all sides. We will and must not balance our Nation's security
against competing interests. Rather, we must ensure that the border
security solution that SECURES also serves to FACILITATE trade and
travel.
Additionally, local and international buy in to border security
solutions is critical if we want a system of border management that
works. Hoemland security will not work if local communities are not
consulted on border securities policies, if their cooperation is not
sought, or if implementation of border security programs is not
coordinated. Homeland security will not work if we are force feeding
border security policies on the very communities that rely on the
border for the economic livelihood.
The bottom line but the key to whether we successfully secure our
borders is how we choose to go about doing it. It isn't just that we
need to secure our country and our borders, but it's important how we
deliver that security.
First, international cooperation is critical to effective border
security. We must work with our neighbors to the north and south. Many
of the border security solutions, such as US-VISIT, require the
cooperation of our neighbors to effectively implement.
Second, we must ensure that security at the border is delivered in a
manner that enhances and fosters other border and national priorities.
How border security programs are designed, the foundations on which
they are built, how they are implemented and how the borders are
staffed--all of these factors must take into account the security and
economic interests of those living in the border region. This is not
about balancing competing interests, rather it means that the
implementation of security at our borders must be done in a manner that
fosters and enhances other border and national priorities.
Democrats believe that to secure our borders we must make a long term
investment in our border communities.
We must make a substantial investment in infrastructure improvements
at our ports of entry and to the transportation corridors that flow
into those ports of entry. According to a report issued by the DHS's
own Data Management Improvement Act Task Force, many approach highways
and border inspection facilities were considered inadequate and
overburdened prior to 9/11.
Additionally, with infrastructure expansion, we must add inspectors
to our land ports of entry and ensure that they receive necessary
training in foreign languages, fraudulent document detection and in
interviewing techniques.
While technology is not a cure all, we must invest in technology that
will both secure and facilitate the inspections process.
The Secure Borders Act which my colleagues and Introduced last week
articulates a consensus approach to border security. While it was
introduced by Democrats, it is a bill that everyone can and should
support.
Lastly, what our Nation needs is a honest and open dialogue on
comprehensive immigration reform--something Congress has been avoiding
for years. As we invest in securing our borders, we must look at
solving the issue of the estimated 7-12 million illegal aliens who call
the U.S. home. After 9/11, having such a large number of people live in
the shadows of society is even more unacceptable. We must review
proposals that encourage these people to step forward. And we must at
the same time enhance Federal enforcement of our immigration laws.
[[Page H7838]]
Section Summary--The SECURE Borders Act
The SECURE Border Act is designed to implement the
recommendations of the report, Transforming the Southern
Border, issued by Representative Jim Turner, the Ranking
Member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. The bill
seeks to close the security gaps that exist on the Southern
Border that were identified in the report.
TITLE I--SECURING OUR BORDERS
Subtitle A--Infrastructure Enhancements
Sec. 101--Creation of a Land Border Infrastructure
Improvement Fund
This provision authorizes $1 billion for an infrastructure
investment fund to enhance and facilitate security and
commerce at our nation's ports of entry. The Secretary of
Homeland Security is authorized to carry out infrastructure
improvement projects recommended in the report submitted
under Section 102.
Sec. 102--Requiring a Vulnerability Assessment of Land Border
Ports of Entry
This provision requires an assessment of and a report on
the vulnerability of our nation's ports of entry to terrorist
attack, the infrastructure and technology improvements needed
based on the level of risk posed by vulnerabilities at the
ports of entry, and follow up assessments every two years to
monitor progress in securing ports of entry. Funds authorized
in Section 101 should be distributed based on assessed
priority.
Sec. 103--Enhancing SENTRI, FAST and NEXUS Pre-Enrollment
Programs
This provision expresses the Sense of Congress that pre-
enrollment programs should be expanded to every major port of
entry, and authorizes pre-enrollment programs, the creation
of pre-enrollment centers away from the border, funds
necessary to build infrastructure to effectively access pre-
enrollment lanes, funds to reduce--participation fee in order
to increase participation and creates an appeals process for
those whose participation has been terminated. Additionally,
the provision requires a report detailing the cost of the
program as well as enrollment and enforcement information.
Subtitle B--Enhancing Border Monitoring Technology
Sec. 111--Deployment of Surveillance Systems Along the US-
Mexico Border
This provision requires the deployment of surveillance
systems along the southern border, such as the integrated
surveillance and intelligence system (ISIS), and ensure that
the entire border is monitored 24/7.
Sec. 112--Deployment of Surveillance Systems Along the US-
Canada Border
This provision requires that the development of a plan to
deploy surveillance systems along the northern border and
provide Congress with a cost estimate and deployment schedule
by September 30, 2005.
Sec. 113--Level of K-9 Units Working on the Southern Border
This provision requires an increase in K-9 bomb detection
units by 20%.
Sec. 114--Deploy Radiation Portal Monitors
This provision authorizes $49 million to install radiation
portal monitors at all land border ports of entry by
September 30, 2005.
Subtitle C--Ensuring Well Trained Personnel at Our Borders
Sec. 121--Double the Number of CBP Personnel
This provision authorizes the doubling of Customs and
Border Protection personnel based on existing positions in FY
2004, and increasing the number of Border Patrol agents
stationed between ports of entry by 3000 over FY 2005 and
2006.
Sec. 122--Assessing Staffing Needs at Our Borders
This provision requires DHS contract with an independent
entity with human resource and staffing expertise to produce
a study on staffing levels should be at ports of entry and
between ports of entry in order for CBP to accomplish its
border security mission. The study is due within one year of
enactment.
Sec. 123--Additional and Continuous Training for Inspectors
This provision requires training for inspectors and where
needed for associated support staff in new technologies. The
section also requires that inspectors along the southern
border be proficient in Spanish, and that appropriate
language training be provided to inspectors and border patrol
on the northern border. The provision also recommends the
creation of a program to ensure the retention of customs and
immigration expertise to supplement the One Face at the
Border Initiative.
Sec. 124--Requiring a Report on the One Face at the Border
Initiative
This provision requires the DHS to submit to Congress a
report on the One Face at the Border initiative outlining the
goals, strengths and weaknesses, and information relating to
training and staffing. The GAO is required to provide
Congress with an assessment of the report.
Subtitle D--Establishing a Comprehensive Border Security Strategy
Sec. 131--Border Security Strategy
This provision requires the development of a comprehensive
inter-agency national Land Border Security Strategy to
identify and fix security gaps along the land borders of the
United States. The strategy is to review a variety of issues
related to land border security including personnel,
infrastructure, technology, coordination of intelligence
among agencies, legal responsibilities, criminal statutes,
apprehension goals, prosecutorial guidelines, economic impact
and the flow of commerce. The report is due on year after
enactment and a GAO assessment is due fifteen months after
enactment.
Sec. 132--Improved Information Sharing
This provision requires that IDENT, a two fingerprint
database, and IAFIS, a ten fingerprint database, be made
interoperable by October 1, 2005.
Sec. 133--Creation of Northern and Southern Border
Coordinators
This provision creates northern and southern land border
coordinator, appointed by the Secretary who serve as the
primary official of the department responsible for
coordinating federal security activities along the border.
Sec. 134--Smart Border Accord Implementation
This provision requires the President to submit to Congress
quarterly updates on the progress of the Smart Border Accord
Working Groups.
Sec. 135--Sense of Congress on the Period of Admission for
Border Crossing Card Holders
This provision expresses the Sense of Congress that
citizens and nationals of Mexico and Canada should be treated
with parity in establishing the periods of time that they are
in the US. The provision directs that once US-VISIT is fully
implemented that the period of admission for Mexicans using a
border crossing card should be increased to 6 months.
Subtitle E--Enhancing Border Security Programs
Sec. 141--Creating a More Effective Entry-Exit System
This provision authorizes the creation of a US-VISIT
Outreach Office to better inform border communities about the
implementation of US-VISIT, reauthorizes the creation of the
Data Management Improvement Act Task Force to study issues
related to border security, and requires that information
currently collected by the I-94 arrival/departure form be
collected by electronic means, namely US-VISIT.
Sec. 142--Transportation Worker Identification Card
This provision requires the submission of a report by
December 31, 2004, on the development and distribution of the
transportation worker identification card, including (1)
information on how the card will be distributed, (2) the
eligibility of Canadian and Mexican truck drivers who are
certified under FAST, (3) selected biometric feature and (4)
the cost and deployment schedule for card reading equipment.
Sec. 143--Standards and Verification Procedures for Inter-
modal Cargo Containers
This provision requires that the DHS develop standards for
container security 180 days after the enactment of this bill.
It also requires the Department to develop a security
verification process for container seals and evaluate
container tracking technologies, cargo targeting data, and
the inspection policy for empty containers.
Sec. 144--Sense of Congress on the Need for Additional Staff
for the US Consulate General in Mexico
This provision expresses the Sense of Congress that the
level of staffing for the US mission to Mexico has not kept
pace with rising consular workloads and that a 25% increase
in staff is necessary.
Subtitle F--Securing Our Tribal and Federal Lands and Territories
Sec. 151--Office of Tribal Security
This provision creates an Office of Tribal Security to
coordinate relations between the federal government and
Indian tribes on issues relating to homeland security.
Sec. 152--Transfer of ``Shadow Wolves'' from CBP to ICE
This provision transfers the Shadow Wolves unit from
Customs and Border Protection to Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.
Sec. 153--DHS and DOI Coordination on Border Security;
Provision of Temporary Authority to DHS to Transfer Funds
This provision provides the Secretary of Homeland Security
with temporary authority to transfer funds from the DHS to
the Department of the Interior to compensate the DOI for
border security activities. The DHS and DOI are instructed to
enter into a Memorandum of Agreement establishing (1)
criteria for DOI to receive such funding, (2) priorities
among projects, and (3) scope of activities for such
projects. The DHS is required to report the transfer of funds
to the appropriate congressional committees and a copy of the
Memorandum of Agreement must be submitted to Congress. This
provision will expire on the completion and implementation of
the National Land Border Security Plan in Section 131.
Mr. TURNER of Texas. I thank the gentlewoman from the great State of
Texas.
____________________